Less is more?

[Per Engstrom]

Hello,

After reading a lot of the posts on this board, I've got the impression that "less is more".
A simple but correct implementation is better than one with un-required functions with some error in them, even if the required functions are the same.

Unfortunately my URLyBird application has grown beyond the minimum requirements.
I now have “create”, “edit”, “un-book” and “delete” functions.
They seem to work, but you never know what the assessor will find...

Has anyone submitted an assignment with several extra functions and failed because of errors in the extra functions only?

[Roel De Nijs]

Hi Per,

First of all a warm welcome to the JavaRanch!

I've got the impression that "less is more"

I kept my solution as simple as possible, only did what was expected/required (besides the dao factory pattern I implemented),... and I got a perfect score.

Has anyone submitted an assignment with several extra functions and failed because of errors in the extra functions only?

I'm not aware of someone failing for that reason. The few ranchers which failed (I believe just 2 or 3 since I'm quiet active in this forum) failed because they broke a must requirement in locking section (for example throwing an exception when a record was already locked, instead of putting thread to wait).

Kind regards,
Roel